Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

Originally posted by fred call
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Bisexuality is not based on sexual preference? But homosexuality is a sexual preference?

I don't think you understand what I said. ATS sometimes requires re-reading.

There might be a contradiction in terms there.

Where are these terms? Please quote my posts for accuracy.

Anyway, if gays can argue for their rights in court, then bisexuals can argue for their rights in the courts of law?

How are bisexuals excluded from this policy? How many bisexuals that you know live in multiple relationships and have healthy open relationships with multiple people?

My understanding is that a bisexual person ( or any person for that matter), will eventually settle down and choose one or the other.

Either way, with legalized same sex marriage, they are covered as equal, under the law.

If you think about it, bisexuals really had the most to gain from legalized same sex marriage, as it gives them the right to choose, who they want to marry, regardless of gender and still have the same rights as any other citizen.

~Keeper

I find it interesting when people say, "the laws states marriage is between two people", so no, polygamy is against the law. Well, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, it's the law........so it should only be changed for certain people? Again, equality isn't going to happen........it's only a special rights issue for a select part of society that's in question now, or else they'd agree that polyamorous relationships can and should be as legal. In fact to be truely equal, all consenting adults should have the right to decide who to marry, however, only the homosexulas seem concerned with their plight, equality, I think not? .

Man is this going to get complex if aliens are actually stupid enough to land here. What's next? The debate over inter-galactic marriage?

NO

At this time marriage is limited to two people.

I am no lawyer, but in California you go to the county courthouse and apply for a "marriage license", with all the legal rights that go with it (recognized in state and federally). You can only be married to one person at a time, otherwise it is called bigamy and is against the law.

California had another type of living arrangement (which wasn't recognized federally I believe) called "domestic partnership"/civil union, which interestingly enough I knew of at least one heterosexual couple choosing that route, because of one partner's legal need federally.

Anyway, no, a person in California can only legally be married to one person at time. And also you have to make really sure your divorce is "finalized", because any further marriage is not valid, and must be "annulled".

Originally posted by intrepid
Man is this going to get complex if aliens are actually stupid enough to land here. What's next? The debate over inter-galactic marriage?

You know, that was in a sci-fi movie/television series title 'Alien Nation.'

www.imdb.com...

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

But it is all based on agreements right?

4 women can decide to marry 1 man if they wish, that is the agreement they make with the man.

It isn't equal when people are forced to do thing without their agreement. Hence a Women not having a choice in denying his husband marrying another women.

The choice should always be there, everyone should have the right to control their affairs based on agreements. The government's job is to only look at these agreements and protect both sides equally. If one side doesn't hold on to the agreement and goes beyond it, that side will be punished, once again, according to the agreement.

Hence, if you agree with someone that he should't have sex with your wife and you shouldn't have sex with his wife, and if either do, the punishment would be this and this.

That is a legal agreement they made.

What happened to separation of church and state?

The state has no jurisdiction in matters of marriage which is a religious en-devour.

Also, these state sanctioned "marriage licences" basically make people slaves because it not only turns them into one legal entity in many matters, but it also implies that the state grants permission for marriage. AKA People don't have the right to marry unless the state licences it. Which is total BS.

Just admit it folks, the only reason the state has anything to do with marriage is because of TAXES and LEGAL MATTERS.

But in reality, church and state should be separate, and you should gain NO TAX or LEGAL distinctions based upon that. This is an abomination.

We need to eliminate state sanctioned marriage licences now. Either get married with your religious community or don't get married at all. Bottom line.

Stop trying to give the government more authority than it has. They have no authority over whom I choose to spend my life with.

Anyone that thinks marriage should be something that requires a judge and legal documents is an idiot.

Marriage is a religious institution, hence the government is barred from "licencing" it by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Of course, since our government is run by a bunch of criminal eugenicists and the people are brainwashed unthinking sheep, we accept the fact that the State has a right to "licence" something between God and Man.

Praise Mao

I'm naked and about to drink an entire bottle of scotch.

Gay marriage has a long way to go before it is made legal in California. At this moment, according to Judge Vaughan Walker's own ruling, gays still can't marry in California. There are too many legal issues to resolve.

Judge Vaughan Walker is an openly gay judge. There is a legal question whether this judge should have recused himself.

There is the legal argument whether Judge Vaughan can overturn the legal California vote.

Judge Vaughan has ruled to put the issuing of gay marriage licenses on hold: "Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume immediately. Judge Walker said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents of the ban pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue."


The case has a long, long way to go. This case will most likely end up in the Supreme Court.

This case will also become a Tenth Amendment State's Rights issue. That opens up yet another even larger can of worms.

On an equal rights issue, one couple's equal rights is another trios equal rights, and so forth. If gays can take their arguments to the Supreme Courth, then bisexuals can take their argumenst to the Supreme Court as well.

Everyone has a 'personal' opinion. And that's okay. Except 'personal' opinions are not always the same as 'legal' opinions.

Originally posted by fred call
On an equal rights issue, one couple's equal rights is another trios equal rights, and so forth. If gays can take their arguments to the Supreme Courth, then bisexuals can take their argumenst to the Supreme Court as well.

I'll ask again.

Since when do bisexuals want to be married to more than one person? That's not the definition of bisexual.

Being bisexual doesn't somehow mean that you automatically want to settle down with more than one person.

Where is this group?

Do you want to marry more than one person legally? What purpose would it serve? Legally that is.

I don't understand why multiple partner marriages has anything to do with this ruling, or same sex marriage in general..

Number and gender are two very different things.

~Keeper

[edit on 8/5/2010 by tothetenthpower]

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

What right? Who exactly is telling me who and what I can and cannot do, providing there is no victim involved? A human being can do whatever the f# he, or she wants, as long as it is in pursuit of their happiness, and not interfering with another's.. End of story

reply to post by fred call


My belief is that if this does go to the Supreme Court of the United States, it may very well be struck down, based off of the prior decisions made by the Supreme Courts of the past. The rulings that comes to mind is that which struck down the laws concerning segregation between those who were of african american descent and the white population, along with the Jim Crow laws. They were on the books of many of the states, and the courts struck them down.

How about minding your own business? Taking care of your family?

I will tell you the truth.. When i was going throgh puberty i experimented, i was confused but i got through those raging hormones and women was the order ofthe day... I could not look at another guy and think hmmmm... but thats me... hense why i know that gay is not a choice but who they are..

I applaud LGBT people for being who they are in TRUTH... Takes guts!. And if my kids were to come out I would applaud them for telling the truth and being themselves.

God HATES liars.. The worst ones are those who live a lie..

If God does not want you to be that way, then His Beautifull Holy Spirit will chmange you and NOT some ingrained religious bigotry..

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

reply to post by intrepid


Exactly. This whole thread is meant to gay-bait.

What is better? The man and woman who are married, with the man sleeping with his secretary on the side while the lady of the house is at home taking anti-depressants, or the bisexual couple that decides to join up with another like minded individual.

This is supposed to be a free country right? Well, about time it becomes free.

To paraphrase a Willie Nelson ditty:

To all the men and women I've loved before

Who've travelled in and out my door

I'm glad you both came along

I dedicate this song

To all the men and women I've loved before..

Originally posted by Ace High
reply to post by intrepid

 

Exactly. This whole thread is meant to gay-bait.

Of course it is.

I think its a testament to ATS posters - they are keeping it real.

Whatever rings your bells!